Consonants have, in like manner, a double aspect as Articulations or Joints. In a rigorous and abstract sense, the Consonant has no sound of its own. It is simply a break or interruption of Sound. Etymologically, it is from the Latin con, WITH, and sonans, SOUNDING; as if it were a mere accessory to a (vowel) Sound; the Vowels being, in that sense, the only sounds. In this sense, the Consonants are analogous with the mere cracks or opening joints, which intervene between the bones of the Skeleton. In other words, they are no sounds, but mere nothings; the analogy, in that case, of Abstract Limitation.

Practically, on the contrary, the Consonant takes to itself such a portion of the vocalized or sounding breath which it serves primarily to limit, that it becomes not merely a sound ranking with the Vowel; but the more prominent and abiding sound of the two. It is in this latter sense, that it is the Analogue of the Bone.

In Phonography, as in Hebrew and some other Languages, the letters representing the Consonant-Sounds only are written or printed; the Vowel-Sounds being either represented by mere points added to the Consonant characters, or left wholly unrepresented, to be supplied by the intelligence of the Reader. The written words so constructed, represent the real words with about the degree of accuracy with which a skeleton represents the living man; so that the meaning can be readily gathered by the practised reader, by the aid of the context. In Phonography, the Consonant-Sounds, which are simple straight or curved lines, are joined together at their ends, forming an outline shape, somewhat like a single script (written) letter of our ordinary writing. These outline words are then instinctually and technically called Skeleton-words, from the natural perception of a genuine Scientific Analogy.

Consonants constitute, then, what may be denominated the Limitismus (Limiting Domain) of Language. The Limit is primarily represented by the Line (a line, any line); then by the Line embodying Substance as seam, ridge, bar, beam, shaft, or bone; and, finally, by a System of Lines, Shafts or Bones which may then be jointed or limited in turn among themselves, forming a concatenation of Lines, Bars or Shafts, the framework of a machine or house or other edifice, or the ideal columnar and orbital structure of the Universe itself. All these conceptions or creations belong to the practical Limitismus, the Form Aspect or Framework of Being in Universals and in Particulars in every Sphere and Department of the Universe.

The Limitismus of Being so defined then stands over against or contrasted with the Substancismus (Substance-Domain) of Being which embraces the Substances, Materials or Stuffs of creation of whatsoever name that infill the interstices of the Framework or are laid upon it, and constitute the richness and fulness and plumpness of the Structure, as the Flesh does of the Body.

The wholeness or Integrality of the structure then consists of the composity of these Two (Limitismus and Substancismus), as the wholeness of the Body consists of the Flesh and the Bone. The Consonants being the Limitismus, and the Vowels the Substancismus of Language; the Two united and coordinated comprise the Trinismal Integrality or Integralismus of Speech.

The Vowels denote, then, Reality, as distinguished from Limitation, or, what is nearly the same thing, Substance, as distinguished from Form.

There are in all Seven (7); or if we include one somewhat more obscure than the rest, a kind of semi-tone, there are Eight (8) full-toned, perfectly distinct and primary Vowel-Sounds, which constitute the Fundamental Vowel Scale of the Universal Alphabet. Their number and nature is governed by the Mechanical Law of their organic production in the mouth. And the number can only be increased by interposing minor shades of sound, as we produce minor shades of color by blending the Seven (7) Prismatic Colors. The new Sound will then belong, in predominance and as a mere variety, to one of these Seven (7) Primary Sounds.

These Seven (7) Sounds constitute the Leading Vowel-System of all Languages; with certain irregularities of omission in the Vowel-System of some Languages.

By the addition of Five (5) equally leading Diphthongs (or Double Vowels) the number of leading Vowel representations is carried up to Twelve (12) or Thirteen (13)—which may then be regarded as the Completed Fundamental Vowel Scale of the Universal Lingual Alphabet.

There are, in like manner, Seven (7)—or Eight (8)—Leading Realities of the Universe, AND OF EVERY MINOR SPHERE OR DOMAIN OF BEING IN THE UNIVERSE, which correspond with, echo or repeat, and are therefore the Scientific Analogues of, these Seven (7) Leading Vowel-Sounds, as they occur among the Elements of Speech.

In representing the Vowel-Sounds, it is better, for numerous reasons, to use the letters with their general European Values, than it is to conform to their altered or corrupted English Values. For instance, the Vowel I (i) is pronounced in nearly every language of Europe, and in all those languages which the Missionaries have reduced to writing, as we pronounce e or ee, or as i in machine, or pique; E (e) is pronounced as we enunciate a in paper; and A is reserved for the full Italian sound of a (ah), as in father; U is pronounced like oo, as in German, Spanish, Italian and many other languages.

The Seven (7) Vowels in question are then as follows:

1. I, i (ee in feel). 2. E, e (a in mate). 3. A, a (a in fa-ther). 4. o, o (aw in awful). 5. u, u (u in curd). 6. O, o (o in no-ble). 7. U, u (oo in fool).

These sounds are produced in the middle, at the back, and at the front of the mouth respectively. These localities, and something of the nature of the sounds themselves, as slender or full, will be plainly illustrated by the annexed figure:

3. Front- 1. Middle- 2. Back- Mouth Mouth Mouth

ou i e (^a) a; o u

The following description of the organic formation or production of these sounds now becomes important.

The Vowel-Sound I (ee) is the most slender and condensed of the Vowel-Scale. It is produced at the middle or central part of the mouth, by forcing a slight, closely-squeezed current of Sounding Breath, through a small, smooth channel or opening made by forming a gutter or scoop of the flattened point of the tongue; while, at the same time, the tongue is applied at the edges to the teeth and gums. This sound has, therefore, an actual form resembling that of a thread or line; or still better, like that of a wire drawn through one of the iron openings by means of which wire is manufactured. It resembles also a slight, smooth, roundish stream of fluid escaping through a tube or trough.

This sound has relation, therefore, in the first place, to Centrality or CENTRE; and then to LENGTH (or Line), which is the First Dimension of Extension. The I-sound continued or prolonged gives the idea of Length. But broken into Least Units of the same quality of Sound, we have individualized Vowel-Sounds of this quality, each one of which is a new Centre; like the successive Points of which a Line is composed.

An individual sound, I, has relation, therefore, to Centre and to Point generally. As such it stands representatively for the Soul or Identity or Central Individuality of Being—for that which gives to anything its distinctive character, as existing in the Point or the Unit, or the Atom, or in any Individual Object or Thing from the Atom up to a World and to the Universe as a whole. Identity is, perhaps, the best single term furnished by our Language to signify this basic idea. Individuality approximates the meaning. It is the pivotal notion of Being itself, and has relation, therefore, to Ontology, the Science of Abstract Being. Essence and Essential Being are terms which may also be used in defining it. The Reader should understand, however, that with reference to this Sound, as to those to be hereafter considered, there is no term or terms in any Language which will indicate their meaning exactly. The analysis of Ideas upon which UNIVERSOLOGY is based is more fundamental than any which has preceded it. Its Primary Conceptions are, therefore, broader and more inclusive than any former ones which existing terms are employed to denote. In explaining the meaning of these First Elements of Sound, then, as related to the First Elements of Thought, all that is now attempted is to convey as clear a notion of this meaning as is possible with our present terminology, without any expectation that the precise meaning intended will be at once or entirely apprehended.

The sound E (a in mate) is likewise a slender, abstract-like, middle-mouth sound; but differs from I in the fact that it is produced by flattening the opening for the Sounding Breath instead of retaining it in a roundish position. The angles of the mouth are drawn asunder, as if pointing outward to the sides of the head, and the sound is, as it were, elongated in the crosswise direction, as if a stick or a quill were held in the teeth, the extremities extending outward to the sides. A line, in this direction, is the measurer of BREADTH, which is the Second Dimension of Extension, crossing the Length-line represented by I at right angles. Side-wise-ness is synonymous with RELATION, as one of the Sub-divisions of Reality, or, in other words, of the Realities of Being. Re-lation is, etymologically, from the Latin re, BACK or REFLECTED, and latus, SIDE; that which mutually and reciprocally re-sides the Centre, or furnishes it with sides or wings. The Vowel-Sound E (a, in mate) is, therefore, the Analogue or Corresponding Representative or Equivalent in the Domain of Sound of that Fundamental Conception which, in respect to Thought, is denominated Relation, in respect to Position Collaterality or Sideness, and in respect to Dimension Breadth or Width.

The Sound A (a in father) is made farther back in the mouth, with the mouth stretched quite open, and is the richest and most harmonious of the Vowel Sounds—the Queen of the Vowels. It is the Italian A, the sound most allied with Music and Euphony, and yet a sound which is greatly lacking in the English Language.

The English Reader must guard himself from confounding the Vowel-Sound of which we are here speaking, with the Consonant R, the alphabetical name of which is by a lax habit of pronunciation made to be nearly identical with this Vowel-Sound; while for this beautiful and brilliant and leading Vowel in the Alphabet of Nature we have no distinct letter in English, and reckon it merely as one of the values or powers of the Letter A, to which we ordinarily give the value of E (a in mate, ai in pain).

This Vowel A (ah, a in father) is made with the mouth so open that the form of its production suggests the insertion of a stick or other elongated object in a perpendicular direction to retain the jaws in their position; a practice said sometimes to be resorted to by the Italian Music Teacher, in order to correct the bad habit of talking through the teeth, common among his English pupils.

This height and depth involved in the Sound of the Vowel A (ah) relates it to THICKNESS, the Third Dimension of Extension; as the Sound I is related to Length, the First of these Dimensions, and the Sound E to Breadth, the Second of them.

Thickness is again related to richness and sweetness, to fulness and fatness, as of the good condition of an Animal in flesh, or of rich and productive soils. And these ideas are again related to wealth or to riches generally; and, hence, again to SUBSTANCE. The objects of wealth are called goods, and a wealthy man is said to be a 'man of substance.' A (ah) is the representative or pivotal Vowel; that one which embodies most completely the Vowel Idea. Its inherent meaning is especially, therefore, that of SUBSTANCE or REALITY, which, is, in a more general way, as we have seen, the meaning of all the Vowels. The most real, tangible, sensible substance from an ordinary point of view being. Matter, this Vowel-Sound allies itself also with Matter or Materiality as contrasted with Spiritual Substance.

There is, it must now be observed, a flattened variety of A (ah), which will here be represented by the same letter italicized, thus, A, a, which is the so-called flat sound of A (ah) as when heard prolonged in mare, pear, etc., or when stopped, in man, mat, etc. This sound is intermediate in position between E and A (ah). That is to say, it is produced farther back in the mouth and with the mouth somewhat more open than when we say E, and not so far back as when we say A (ah); and with the mouth less open. As contrasted with the A (ah), it is a thin, flat, and slightly unsatisfactory and disagreeable sound, analogically related to the natural semitone fa of the Diatonic Scale of Musical Tones. This Sound signifies accordingly, THINNESS, ATTENUATED MATTER, the Ghost or Spirit of Nature, related to Odic Force, Magnetisms, Electricity, etc.; still not, however, Spirit in the sense of Mind, or in the Religio-Spiritual sense of the word. This is the exceptional or bastard Vowel-Sound which has but an imperfect or half claim to be inserted in the Leading Vowel Scale. When inserted, its natural position is between the E and the A (ah), although for certain reasons it sometimes changes position with the A (ah), following instead of preceding it.

The next two Vowel-Sounds, o (aw in awful), and u (u in curd), are somewhat like the a (a in mare), exceptional or bastard Sounds. They are unheard in many Languages, and unrecognized as distinct sounds in many Languages where they are, in fact, heard. Very few Languages have distinct Letter-Signs for them. In using the Roman Alphabet, I am compelled to adopt a contrivance to represent them; which is, as in the case of the a, to print them in italic types, for which, when the remainder of the word is in italic, small capitals are substituted, thus: Oful (awful); Urgent; or, in case the whole word is intended to be italicized, for the sake of emphasis, Oful, Urgent. In script or handwriting, the italic Letter is marked by underscoring a single line, and the small capital by underscoring two lines.

O (aw) is the fullest of the Vowel-Sounds. It is made with the mouth still farther open than when we say A (ah), and somewhat farther back; or, rather, with the cavity enlarged in all directions, and especially deepened. The mouth is stretched in all ways to its utmost capacity, giving a hollow, vacant effect to the voice, instead of the rich, mellow and substantial sound of the A (ah). The Sound so produced is, nevertheless, on the one hand, a broader quality of the A (ah), and there is a strong tendency on the part of the A (ah) to degenerate into it, as when the uneducated German, says Yaw for Ja (yah). On the other hand, this sound has something of the quality of O. It is, therefore, intermediate in quality between A (ah) and O. In respect to meaning, it is the Type, Analogue, Equivalent, or Representative of Volume or SPACE, whether filled or unfilled by Substance. That is to say, it is the Analogue of Space, not in the sense in which we formerly regarded Space as the negation of Matter; but in the sense of Infinite Dimensionality, or of Dimensionality in all directions, as a vague generalization from the three special dimensions Length, Breadth, and Thickness. It is, therefore, round or ball-like, and huge, and, in respect to the nature of the tone, vague and vacant.

Space as mere nothing has no Letter-Sign in the Alphabet; but is represented by the blank types or spaces used by the printer to separate his syllables and words, as shown heretofore. Space as a Department of Reality, as one of the Realities of the Universe, a bastard or semi-Reality it is true, but nevertheless, belonging to that Domain, is denoted by the Vowel-Sound o (aw).

The Sound u (uh, u in curd), the fifth of the Scale, is called among Phoneticians, the Natural Vowel. It is the simple, unmodulated or unformed vocal breath permitted to flow forth from the throat or larynx with no effort to produce any specific sound. It is the mere grunt, a little prolonged; the unwrought material out of which the other and more perfect Vowel Sounds are made by modulation, or, in other words, by the shapings and strains put upon the machinery of utterance. The Hebrew scheva, the French eu, and e mute, are varieties of this easily-flowing, unmodulated, unstable, unsatisfactory sound. Like the o (aw), this sound u (uh) has a vacant, unfinished, and inorganic character as a sound, while yet, from its great fluency, its frequent occurrence tends, more than that of any other sound, to give to Language that conversational fluency, rapidity and ease which are especially characteristic of the French Tongue. From this same easy laxity of its nature all the other Vowel Sounds tend, in English particularly, when they are not accented, to fall back into this Natural Vowel; as in the following instances: Roman, broken, mirth, martyr, Boston, curd, etc.; words which we pronounce nearly Romun, brokun, murth, martur, Bostun, curd, etc.

This Sound, as to inherent meaning, is, by its alliance with the idea of flux, flow and continuity, the Type, Analogue, Equivalent or Representative in the Domain of Oral Sound of that Fundamental Conception which, in respect to Idea, we denominate TIME; and of Stream-like or Currental Being of all kinds.

Space, denoted by o (aw), has relation to the Air as an atmosphere, and to the Ocean of Ether in filling the Great Spheral Dome of Empyrean or Firmament. The Vowel-Sound u (uh) has a similar relation to Fluidity or Liquidity, and, hence, to Water as a typical fluid, to the Ocean Flux or Tide, to the Flowing Stream, etc. This Time-like idea is uni-dimensional or elongate in a general or fluctuating sense; not specifically like I. It is in view of this characteristic, that it is broadly and primarily contrasted with the Spacic significance of o (aw), which is omnidimensional.

The two remaining Vowel-Sounds, the O and U (oo), repeat the o (aw) and u (uh), in a sense, but in a new and more refined stage or degree of development. The sound O is made at the front mouth—the locality the most openly in sight of any at which Sound is produced—by rounding the lips into an irregularly-circular, face-like, or disk-like presentation. The O Sound so produced denotes Presence, as of an object by virtue of its reflection of Light; and, hence, LIGHT, Clearness, Purity, Reflection.

The U (oo in fool) is an obscured or impure pronunciation of the O. The lips are protruded as if to say O; but not being sufficiently so for the production of the pure Sound, the Sound actually given is mixed, or made turbid or thick. The U-Sound denotes accordingly Retiracy, Obscurity, Shade, Turbidity, Mixedness, or Impurity, as of Colors in a dim light, or as of Materials in a slime or plasma, etc.

Metaphysically, O denotes PURE THEORY, the Abstract; and U (oo) signifies the ACTUAL or PRACTICAL, the Tempic, the Concrete (the Temporal or Profane), which is always mixed with contingency.

Other Vowel-Sounds, shades more or less distinct of some one of these Leading Sounds, are interspersed by nature between these diatonic Sounds, like the half tones and quarter tones in Music. Two of these French eu and e muet modifications of u (uh) have been mentioned. Eu is modulated at the lips, and e muet at the middle mouth, but both have the general character of u (uh). The French U is a modification of the U (oo), of the Scale just given, but made finer, and approximating I (ee). The Italian O is a modification of o (aw). These four are the Leading Semi-tone Sounds; which along with a carry the Scale from Seven (7) diatonic up to twelve (12) chromatic. As they will be passed over for the present with this mere mention, the points of the Scale at which they intervene will not be now considered.

Discarding these minor shades of Sounds, the Leading Scale of Vowel-Sounds is augmented from Seven (7) or Eight (8) to Twelve (12) or Thirteen (13), by the addition of the following five (5) Diphthongs or Double Vowels. In respect to the quality of Sound, they are pronounced just as the Vowels of which they are composed would be if separated and succeeding each other. To make the Diphthong long, the two Sounds are kept quite distinct. To make it short, they are closely blended; as, AU (ah-oo), long; AŬ (ahoo), short. With no diacretical mark they are pronounced ad libidum, or neither very long nor short.

The following are the five (5) Diphthongs which complete the Vowel Scale:

The IU is composed of the first Vowel I (ee) and the last U (oo). The I-sound, so placed before another Vowel-Sound, tends readily to be converted into or more properly to prefix to itself the weak Consonant-Sound represented in English by Y (in German and Italian by J); thus YIU for IU. The whole of the three Sounds so involved (a real Triphthong) are represented by the English U long—which is never a simple Vowel-Sound—as in union, pronounced yioonyun.

This Diphthong IU (or yiu) denotes Conjunction, Conjuncture, Event (the two ends meeting); and also Coupling or Unition; a central point between extremes.

The next and the most important of the Diphthongs (except AU) is AI, compounded of the third (A) and the first (I) of the simple Vowel-Sounds. It is pronounced very nearly like the English long I, as in pine, fine, etc., which is not a simple Vowel; but is compounded of the two simple Vowels above mentioned (A and I, ahee) in a very close union with each other; or, as it were, squeezed into each other. The Tikiwa (Tee-kee-wah) combination (this is the name of the Scientific Universal Language), AI, is not ordinarily quite so close, and when pronounced long, is quite open, so that each Vowel is distinctly heard (ah-ee).

This Diphthong AI may be regarded as embracing and epitomizing the lower or ground wing or half of the Simple Vowel-Scale (I E a A); its meaning is, therefore, that of BASIC or SUBSTANTIAL REALITY: the GROUND of Existence.

Contrasted with this is the next Diphthong, OI (aw-ee), compounded of the fifth (o) and the first (I) Vowel-Sounds. It is the Sound of oy in boy. The I contained in this Diphthong may be regarded as standing in the place of U at the other extremity of the Scale. This last Sound has a tendency to return into I through the French slender U, illustrating the Principle of the Contact of Extremes. The Diphthong OI may, therefore, be viewed as embracing and epitomizing the upper or ethereal wing or half of the Simple Vowel Scale (o u O U); its meaning is, therefore, that of AERIAL or ASCENDING REALITY; LOFTINESS or LOFT.

Next there occurs a Diphthong OI, pronounced as the same letters in the English word going, which has a half claim to be ranked with the Leading Diphthongs. It is sometimes reckoned into, and sometimes out of, the Scale—like a among the Simple Vowels. Its meaning is that of FRONTNESS, PROSPECT.

Finally, the great Focal Diphthong, that which includes and epitomizes the whole Vowel Scale, is AU (ah-oo), compounded of the third Vowel-Sound (A) and the Seventh (or Eighth) U. It is the sound heard in our, or in the Spanish causa. The meaning of this Supreme Diphthong and general Vowel Representative is UNIVERSAL REALITY. It stands practically in the place of all the Vowels, in the Composition of Words of an inclusive meaning. That is to say, it integrates in its signification, all that is inherently signified by all the other Vowels.

While, however, AU is practically and usually the Representative, Analogue or Equivalent, in the Domain of Language, of Universal Reality among the Elements of Being, this is so only in practice. Theoretically, the Diphthong best adapted to represent this Idea is AO; the A and the O being, in a supreme sense, the two most prominent or leading Vowels. But it is a little difficult to retain the Organs of Utterance in the position which they must assume in order to pronounce these two Vowel-Sounds in conjunction. The organs readily and naturally slide into the easier position in which they utter AU. This is correspondential with the difficulty always experienced in adhering to Pure Theory (O); and the natural tendency to glide from it, as ground too high for permanent occupation, into the more accommodating Domain of the Practical (U).

The Full Scale of Vowel Sounds coupled with the Full Scale of the (Indeterminate) Realities of Universal Being is, therefore, as follows:

1. SOUNDS. 2. REALITIES OF BEING.

1. I, i (ee as in feel). ENTITY or IDENTITY (Centre, Least Element, Essential Being, Individuality).

2. E, e (a as in mate). RELATION (Sideness, Collaterality, Adjectivity).

3. A, a (a as in mare). UNSUBSTANTIALITY (Thinness, Ghost, Apparition).

4. A, a (a as in fa-ther). SUBSTANCE (Thickness, Materiality, Richness, Goodness).

5. O, o (aw as in awful). SPACE (Volume, Expansion).

6. U, u (u as in curd). TIME (Flux, Flow).

7. O, o (o as in noble). LIGHT (Reflection, Parity, Clearness, Theory).

8. U, u (oo as in fool). SHADE (Retiracy, Turbidity, Mixture, Practice).

9. IU, iu (YIU), (u in union, use). CONJUNCTION (Event, Joining).

10. AI, ai (ah-ee, i in fine). BASIC REALITY (Ground of Existence).

11. OI, oi (aw-ee, oy in boy). AERIAL or ASCENDING REALITY (Loft, Loftiness).

12. OI, oi (o-ee, oi in going). FRONTNESS, PROSPECT.

13. AU, au (ou in our). UNIVERSAL REALITY.

The Vowels and Diphthongs of this Basic Scale may be Long or Short, without any change of quality. This difference is indicated by diacritical marks, which it is not now necessary to exhibit.

In addition to these merely quantitative differences in the Vowel-Sounds, there is a corresponding difference of Quality, which produces a Counter-Scale of Vowel-Sounds; an echo or repetition of the Basic Scale throughout its entire length. This new Scale is a Series of Sounds predominantly short in quantity. They are called by Mr. Pitman the Stopped Vowels. (In German they are denominated the Sharp Vowels.) These Sounds are nearly always followed by a Consonant-Sound in the same syllable, by which they are stopped or broken abruptly off, and the purity of their quality as Vowels affected or disturbed.

It is not essential for our present purpose to give a detailed list of these Vowels; more especially as every Reader will readily recall them; as I, in pIn; E, in pEt; A in pAt; o, in not; u, in but; O, in stOne, cOAt; U, in fUll.

In respect to the Vowel Diphthongs, the Stopped Sounds are not materially different from the short quantities of the corresponding Full ones; and no effort need be made to distinguish the two former varieties of Sound. The same is true of the Short and Stopped Sounds of A (ah). But the difference is very marked in the remaining Seven (7) Simple Vowels; the Stopped Sounds of which are given above. For the ordinary purposes of Language it is not necessary to distinguish these Stopped Sounds by any diacritical mark. But in the short Root-Words, where a difference of meaning depends upon the difference between the full and stopped Vowel, the so-called grave accent is employed to denote the stopped quality, as pique, pick, for example, written thus: pik, pik.

The meaning of the Stopped Vowel-Sounds is merely the broken or fractionized aspect of the same ideas which are symbolized by the corresponding Full Vowel-Sounds.

The nature and meaning of the Vowels being thus explained with sufficient amplitude for the uses now in view, we are prepared to advance, in a subsequent paper, to the consideration of the individual Consonant-Sounds, their character and inherent signification.



THE TWO PLATFORMS.

It was the opprobrium of the Republican party in the Presidential campaign of 1860, that the Southern States were not, in any but a limited degree, represented in its ranks; and so it was called a sectional party. The Presidential campaign of 1864 is not less remarkable, on the other hand, because the party which now appropriates the honored name of Democratic seems to ignore the crime of rebellion on the part of those Southern States, and thus invites an even more obnoxious appellation. History will record with amazement, as among the strange phenomena of a war the most wicked of all the wicked wars with which ambition has desolated the earth (phenomena that will perplex men and women of loyal instincts and righteous common sense to the latest day), the resolutions of the Chicago Convention of 1864.

It is the purpose of this article to consider as dispassionately as may be, those Chicago resolutions, as well as the ones previously adopted at Baltimore; desiring to look at them both from the standpoint of a patriotism which loves the whole country as one indivisible nation—the gift of God, to be cherished as we cherish our homes and our altars.

A convention called of all those, without respect to former political affinities, who believed in an uncompromising prosecution of the war for the Union till the armed rebellion against its authority should be subdued and brought to terms, met at Baltimore on the 7th of June last, and nominated Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, for reelection as President, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, for election as Vice-President. The convention, with exceeding good sense, and obedient to the just and patriotic impulses of the people, disregarded all party names of the past, and called itself simply a National Union Convention. Two months later, and on the 29th of August last, obedient to the call of Democratic committees, a convention met at Chicago, composed of men whose voices were for peace, and nominated for President General George B. McClellan, of New Jersey, and for Vice-President George H. Pendleton, of Ohio. This convention took the name of Democratic, indicating thereby not the idea of the equal rule of all the people, as the name imports, but the traditions and policies of those degenerate days before the war, when Democracy had strangely come to mean the rule of a few ambitious men. In other words, it ignored the crime of those men (who have sacrificed their country to their ambition), and assumed that the country could also overlook the crime. It supposed the people ready to strike hands with rebellion and elevate the authors of rebellion to power again.

Perhaps the difference between the two conventions may be concisely stated thus: The Chicago Convention was for peace first, and Union afterward; the Baltimore Convention for Union first, then peace. Let us see.

THE CHICAGO PLATFORM.

We suppose that no one will think us wanting in fairness when we characterize the Chicago Platform as one of peace.[4] If there is any reproach in the term, it surely is not the fault of those who take men to mean what they say.

[Footnote 4: It is presumed that every one is familiar with the two platforms, as they are so easily obtained, and it is, therefore, not deemed necessary to encumber the pages of the Magazine with inserting them in full.]

Indeed, it is simply the truth to declare that the general impression on the first publication of it confirmed the view we have taken, and that even among the supporters of the convention there were many who proclaimed their confident expectation that General McClellan, if he should accept the nomination, would disregard the platform, and stake his chances on his own more warlike record. We will not stop to consider in this place whether that expectation has been fulfilled. It suffices for our present purpose to remind our readers that the great doctrine of the Democratic party of former days was expressed in the motto, 'Principles, not men;' and that the rigid discipline of the party has always required the nominee to be the mere representative of the platform—its other self, so to speak: as witness the case of Buchanan, who declared himself, following the approved formulas of his party, no longer James Buchanan, but the Cincinnati Platform. It ought also to be borne in mind, that General McClellan's letter of acceptance does not, in terms, repudiate the platform, and is not necessarily inconsistent with it.

The first one of the six resolutions that constitute the Chicago Platform, has the sound of true doctrine. 'Unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution,' is the duty of every citizen, and has always been the proud war-cry of every party; and they who swerve from it are subject not simply to our individual censure, but to the sanction of our supreme law. The just complaint against this platform is, that, while thus proclaiming good doctrine, it overlooks the departure therefrom of a large portion of the people, misled by wicked men. When we look at the other resolutions, the first one seems all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

Nor will we withhold what of approval may possibly be due, in strict justice, to the sixth and last resolution; although the approval can only be a limited one. No one can overlook the entire lack in that resolution of cordial sympathy with the sacred cause of nationality, to which the brave heroes of the war have given their lives and fortunes. It restricts itself to a simple recognition of the 'soldiery of our army,' as entitled to 'sympathy,' with a promise of 'protection' to them, 'in the event of our attaining power.' It ignores the navy, and passes by the gallant heroes who on sea and river have upheld the flag of our country with a lustre that pales not before the names of Paul Jones, and Perry, and Decatur. Moreover, the sympathy 'extended to the soldiery' is the sympathy not of the American people, but of 'the Democratic party.' Surely, this phrase was ill conceived. It has a touch of partisan exclusiveness that is sadly out of place. But the resolution is unpartisan and patriotic in another respect that deserves notice. It extends the 'sympathy of the Democratic party to the soldiery of our army,' without making any discrimination to the prejudice of the negro soldiers; and thus commits the 'Democratic party,' with honorable impartiality, to the 'care and protection' of all 'the brave soldiers of the Republic.'

With these criticisms upon the first and sixth resolutions, we proceed to record our total disapprobation of the remaining four. In all candor, we contend that those four resolutions are a surrender of the national honor, and a violation of the national faith. They are unworthy the old glory of the Democratic party. For what is the purport of them? Is it condemnation of a rebellion that has 'rent the land with civil feud, and drenched it in fraternal blood'? Is it to stimulate the heroism of those whose breasts are bared to the bullets of traitors in Virginia and Georgia, and who have 'borne aloft the flag and kept step to the music of the Union' these three years and a half in unwearied defence of the nation? Ah, no; they declare the war a 'failure'! The second resolution is the keynote of the platform, reciting 'that after four years (three years and a half) of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war,... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities.' Upon this resolution there can be no better comment than the remembrance of Donelson and Pea Ridge, Pittsburg Landing and Vicksburg, Murfreesboro' and Chattanooga, Antictam and Gettysburg; not to speak of that splendid series of battles from the Wilderness to Petersburg, which at last has brought the rebel general to bay; nor of the glorious victories, since the Chicago Convention, at Mobile and Atlanta, and in the Shenandoah Valley. It can never be forgotten that on the fourth of July, 1863, Governor Seymour, in a public discourse at the Academy of Music, in New York, drew a deplorable picture of the straits to which the nation was at last reduced, with the enemy marching defiantly across the fertile fields of Pennsylvania, and men's hearts failing them for fear of danger, not alone to the political capital, Washington, but also to the financial capital, New York; and that, even while the words fell from the speaker's lips, that defiant enemy, already beaten, was rapidly retreating before the magnificent old Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg: while victorious Grant had already broken the left of the rebel line, and was celebrating the nation's anniversary in the triumph of Vicksburg. Even so, let it never be forgotten that the delegates who adopted this second resolution, so burdened with despair, had scarcely reached their homes, ere the stronghold of the Southern Confederacy, which, ever since the war was begun, has been boastfully proclaimed the key of its military lines, and as impregnable as Gibraltar, fell before the unconquerable progress of the armies of the West, under General Sherman; and thus the rebel centre, as well as left, had been broken, and only the rebel right, at Richmond, yet remains to the Southern army.

In further answer to the discouraging language of this resolution, let us offset the following terse and comprehensive statement of what has been accomplished in the course of the nation's 'experiment of war.' It is copied from The Evening Post of a recent date, and the writer supposes the soldiers to speak thus:

'We have not failed; on the contrary, we have fought bravely and conquered splendidly. In proof of our words we can point to such trophies as few wars can equal and none surpass. Besides defending with unusual vigilance and completeness two thousand miles of frontier, in three years we have taken from the enemies of the Union, by valor and generalship, thirty complete and thoroughly furnished fortresses; we have captured over two thousand cannon; we have reconquered and now hold nearly four thousand miles of navigable river courses; we have taken ten of the enemy's principal cities, three of them capitals of States; in thirty days last summer we captured sixty thousand prisoners; we have penetrated more than three hundred miles into the territory claimed by the enemy; we have cut that territory into strips, leaving his armies without effectual communication with each other; the main operations and interests of the war, which were lately concentrated about Baltimore, Paducah, and St. Louis, have been transferred, by our steady and constant advance, to the narrow limits of the seaboard Slave States; we hold every harbor but one, of a coast six thousand miles long. And whatever we have taken we hold; we have never turned back, or given up that which we once fairly possessed.'

It has, however, been fittingly reserved for the chief of the rebellion himself to give the full and complete answer to this dishonorable complaint of failure. Not a month after the meeting of the Chicago Convention, and on the 23d of September last, Jeff. Davis uttered these words, in a public speech, at Macon, Geo.: 'You have not many men between eighteen and forty-five left.... Two-thirds of our men are absent, some sick, some wounded, but most of them absent without leave. ... In Virginia the disparity of numbers is just an great as it is in Georgia.'

But let it be granted that after these three years and a half of war, and having accomplished such unquestionably important results, the Union is not yet restored, what then? Is that a reason for giving up now? Our fathers fought the British seven years without flinching; and under the indomitable leader God had given them, they would have fought seven years longer with equal determination. Are we less determined than they were? Are we such degenerate sons that we are willing to give up the legacy they left us, at half its original cost? There is just the same reason that we should yield the contest now as there was in 1861 that we should yield it then; neither more nor less. The integrity of the nation, the perpetuity of our institutions, the safety, honor, and welfare of the people are still at stake.

If it is true that 'justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities,' then those same holy principles were assailed when the war was begun. If the United States Government was the assailant, it did wrong, and has continued doing wrong ever since; and not a century of such wrong-doing can make the war just and right on our part. This brings us face to face with the question, Who began the war? Who, in this contest, has assailed the principles of 'justice, humanity, and liberty'? Who has attacked the 'public welfare'? Has it been the United States Government? Let us revert to the occasion of the war. Confining ourselves to what all parties admit—even the rebels themselves—the immediate occasion of the war was the election of a President distasteful, for whatever cause, to the Southern leaders. Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States under the organic law of the nation, in strict accordance with all its modes and requirements, and none ever disputed the fairness of the election. That organic law is the Constitution, to which the South is bound equally with the North. The men of the Chicago Convention, who have recalled to our minds its high supremacy, neglected to express their opinion of those who, immediately on the election of President Lincoln, contemptuously spurned it, and have sought these three years and a half to overthrow it and destroy the Union which it upholds.

Every sentiment of 'justice' was outraged when wicked sedition thus without cause reared its head against the covenant of the nation. Every instinct of 'humanity' was stifled by the traitors who surrounded a gallant garrison of seventy men with a force of ten thousand, and opened fire on the heroes who stood by the flag that had been the glory and defence of both for more than half a century. 'Liberty,' in all its blessed relations of home, and country, and religion, was struck at when blind ambition thus set at defiance the power of the Union, to which liberty owes its life on this continent, and its hopes throughout the world. The constitutional liberty that is the glory of our civilization, the liberty regulated by law that is the pride of our institutions, was attacked by those who at Montgomery fiercely defied the Constitution and laws. And what shall we say of the constitution which these traitors to their country and humanity affected to establish, instead of that, the heritage of their and our Washington and his compeers, which had made our country powerful among nations, and blessed it with equal laws and equal protection to all? What shall we say of the constitution that ordained slavery as the corner stone of a new confederacy, to teach mankind the folly of Christian civilization, and bring back the 'statelier Eden' of the dark ages? To which party in this terrible strife of brothers does 'liberty' look for protection to-day? Which of the two armies of brothers now arrayed against each other on the plains of Virginia and Georgia, is fighting for the principle of order, which is the 'public welfare'? Let these questions be answered, and then it will appear how much reason there is in the declaration that 'liberty, justice, humanity, and the public welfare' demand the 'cessation of hostilities.' On the contrary, these very principles demand that the war be continued without abatement till they are guaranteed safe residence and sure protection under the United States Constitution.

But, it is objected, you ignore the basis on which, this 'cessation of hostilities' is proposed, namely, 'the Federal Union of the States.' There is a word to be said in reference to this clause which will illustrate the high-toned patriotism of some of the convention which adopted it. There was an alteration in the wording of the resolution, and some of the papers printed it accordingly, 'the basis of the Federal States.' The editor of the New York Freeman's Journal (a paper which zealously supports the Chicago platform and all peace measures, and is called Democratic), being requested to explain which version was correct, said, in a late issue of his journal, that in the original draft of the resolution 'it was not the bold doctrine of Federal States;' it was the delusion and snare of a Federal 'Union,' and that therefore the latter must be taken as the correct version.

Replying to the above objection, we say that we neither ignore this 'delusion and snare' of the Federal Union as the basis of the proposed peace, nor those other words in the fourth resolution, 'that the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired.' The question is, how possibly to reconcile the demand for an immediate 'cessation of hostilities' with this great anxiety to preserve the Federal Union? For the Federal Union can only be preserved by subduing the armed rebellion that menaces it. Anything short of the absolute and thorough defeat of the Southern armies must lower the dignity of the nation, and weaken and subvert the foundations of the Union. Thus far, by the grace of God and our right arm, the Constitution and Union are preserved, and so long as they 'still stand strong,' the basis of settlement remains; and whenever the rebels are tired of trying their strength against them, the nation stands ready to welcome them back, as penitent prodigals. It is not we who are unreconciled to them: it is they who refuse to be reconciled to us. If the illustration offend no weaker brother, we may say that, like the ever-surrounding love of God, the Federal Union is still watching over the rebels, and is only waiting the first symptom of their returning conscience to run and fall on their necks and kiss them, and bring them in peace to the home they so foolishly left. They are striving to destroy the Constitution and the Union. We oppose them. Let us consider what, under these circumstances, 'a cessation of hostilities' means.

In the first place, how are hostilities to cease, unless the power that controls the Southern armies so wills it? That power is a military despotism. It has usurped all other power within the limits of the rebellion, and the United States Government is seeking to overthrow it, in order that the Constitution may be restored, in all its benignity, to the people of the South, whom the usurpation has deprived of it. Is it, then, for the United States Government to propose to the authors of this usurpation to cease seeking its total overthrow? The question recurs, moreover, what 'cessation' have we to propose? It is for them to offer to yield: they are the aggressors, threatening the life of the nation. Is any among us so base he would have peace with dishonor? A nation cannot submit to be dishonored before the world—for its honor is its life. Yet what sort of peace would that be which we should thus begin by seeking? It is far from pertinent to cite, as some have done, the example of Napoleon on this point: even supposing that civil war were, in respect of this thing, the same as war between independent nations. For Napoleon never proposed suspensions of hostilities except in his own extremity, and as a convenient means to extricate himself from difficulties which he had the art of concealing from his adversaries. Are we in extremity, that this example of Napoleon should be suggested in support of the Chicago platform?

As to how our overtures might be received at Richmond, we are no longer left any excuse for doubting. The oft-repeated assurances of all who have fled from the rebel tyranny since the war was begun, are, at length, confirmed by the authoritative declaration of Jeff. Davis himself. It is a declaration promulgated not only by Colonel Jaquess and Mr. Gilmore, in the account given by the latter of their recent visit to Richmond, but also by Mr. Benjamin, the rebel Secretary of State, in a circular letter written for the purpose of giving the rebel account of that visit. We are told by the rebel chief himself, that as preliminary to any negotiations, the independence of the Southern Confederacy must be first acknowledged. Why does not the Chicago platform suggest a way of avoiding this difficulty? Why has it left the country in uncertainty on a question so vital?

But, in the second place, suppose it were possible to have a 'cessation of hostilities' without this preliminary acknowledgment of the Confederate independence, and that the war might be at an absolute stand still for a definite season, are we fully aware of the risks attending this measure? For the Chicago platform has left them out of sight. 'A cessation of hostilities' is an armistice; and there is no such thing known in the authorities on international law, or in history, as 'a cessation of hostilities' distinct from an armistice. In defining the incidents of war, Wheaton speaks of a 'suspension of hostilities by means of a truce, or armistice,' and uses the three terms interchangeably. In other words, whatever 'cessation (or suspension, as it is called in the books) of hostilities,' there may occur between the parties to a war, it is known among men and in history as an armistice, which is also the technical term for it. There would be no need to enlarge upon this point, if it had not been made already the basis of fallacious appeals to popular ignorance. Now, the incidents of an armistice are well defined, giving to both parties, besides the advantage of time to rest, full liberty to repair damages and make up losses of men and material; and it is perfect folly, or worse, to talk of 'a cessation of hostilities' without giving to the rebels these important advantages. But the controlling consideration in reference to this whole thing, and which every person ought to ponder carefully, is the effect of the proposed 'cessation of hostilities' upon our neutral neighbors. On this point the doctrine of international law is thus stated by the distinguished French writer, Hautefeuille, 'the eminent advocate of neutral rights,' as he is justly called by the American editor of Wheaton, and whose works on neutral relations are always cited with respect, and recognized as authority.

'The duties imposed on neutrals by the state of war belong essentially to the state of war itself. From the moment it ceases, for whatever cause, even temporarily, the duties of neutrals likewise cease; as to them, peace is completely restored during the suspension of arms. They resume then all the rights which had been modified by the war, and can exercise them in their full extent during the whole time fixed for the duration of the truce, if this time has been limited by the agreement; and until the resumption of hostilities has been officially announced to them, if it has not been limited.'[5]

[Footnote 5: 'Des Droits des Nations Neutres,' t. I., p. 301]

Can language be clearer? It will not do to treat it lightly. It is a statement of what international law is on this point from an authority; and the reasons for the doctrine are clear and incontrovertible. Neutrality depends on the fact of war; when, for any cause, that fact no longer exists, neutrality ceases likewise, of course. It is only the application of a well-known maxim of law, that when the reason of a rule fails, the rule itself fails. Let there be 'a cessation of hostilities,' then, as proposed in the Chicago platform, and how long would it be before rebel ships of war from English ports would be ready to desolate our coast, destroy our shipping, raise the blockade, and give to the rebellion the aid and sustenance it must have ere long or perish?

There is still another difficulty in the way of suspending hostilities, which it is well for us not to ignore. If we propose to the rebels 'a cessation of hostilities,' does not the question immediately become one of negotiation between separate Governments? Have we not in that moment, and in that thing, then recognized the Southern Confederacy as a separate and independent Power? For does not 'a cessation of hostilities' presuppose parties of equal sovereignty on both sides? Indeed, The London Times of a recent date already declares that 'it would concede to the South a position of equality.' Such a concession cannot, for a moment, be thought of. For the very question at issue is our constitutional supremacy. When that is yielded, all is yielded. The exchanging of prisoners, and the numerous like questions that perpetually arise in the progress of war, are matters of common humanity, that depend upon their own law. They are totally independent of the questions at issue between the parties belligerent; and our dealings with the South, in reference to such matters, cannot be construed into a recognition of its separate independence. If we consent to treat with the rebel chiefs, however, in regard to the very question involved in the war, how can we longer compel the non-interference of foreign Powers? If we acknowledge the authority of Jeff. Davis to speak for the Southern people, we cannot then take offence if other nations acknowledge him as the representative and head of a new Government.

Such and so great are the consequences of a 'cessation of hostilities,' which the Chicago platform proposes to the serious consideration of the American people.

It thus appears how irreconcilable are the expressions in that platform in regard to the preservation of the Federal Union, with the clearly announced determination to propose immediately 'a cessation of hostilities.' They are vague generalities, and can have no other purpose than to catch the popular ear so as more effectually to deceive the popular heart. That this is not a harsh judgment, consider how the four resolutions that treat of the war all hinge upon the proposition to suspend hostilities. For they concern themselves with what? With condemnation of the rebellion, its authors, and objects, suggesting, at the same time, how more effectually to bring upon it its righteous retribution? Far from it. Indeed, a stranger to all that has passed in our country during the last three years, would suppose, from a study of these resolutions, that the United States Government had usurped the power of a despotism, and that all who are not arrayed in open rebellion, against its authority were groaning under the yoke of a tyrant. The platform throughout ignores the one supreme question that is before the people to-day. That one question is, Shall we maintain the integrity of the nation? It is vain to introduce other issues; they must abide the event of arms. The old maxim that in the midst of war the laws are silent, is not to be condemned. For our laws are of no avail, the nation cannot enforce them, so long as armed rebellion threatens its existence. With the nation, all its laws, principles, vital forces, are equally menaced and imperilled; and they are, in virtue of that very fact, in abeyance, in order that they may be saved. It is said that the Constitution is not suspended because of rebellion, and this is the basis of much declamation, both in the Chicago platform and elsewhere, against the exercise of extraordinary powers on the part of the President. But the Constitution authorizes the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, that great writ of right which is the bulwark of our Anglo-Saxon liberty, 'when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it;' and confers upon Congress full power to legislate for the defence of the nation, making it then the duty of the President to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' What more is needed as a warrant for extraordinary power? The Chicago Convention has appealed to the Constitution, and in that has done wisely. But what is the Constitution? It is the organic law of the nation. In virtue of it the nation exists, and by the supreme warrant of it the nation maintains its existence against parricidal treason. Under the Constitution all power is granted to the public authorities to quell insurrection; and the grant of a power, by one of the first principles of law, as also of common sense, implies every essential incident to make the grant effectual.

In support of these views it is pertinent to cite the authority of an approved text writer on municipal law, whose book has appeared since they were first written, and who has elaborately investigated the points involved. The result of his patient and thorough study is stated in these propositions:

'That no civil power resides in any department of the Government to interfere with the fundamental, personal rights of life, liberty, and property, guaranteed by the Constitution; that a warlike power is given by the Constitution to the President temporarily to disregard these rights by means of the martial law; that under the sanction of this species of law, the President and his subordinate military officers may, within reasonable limits, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, cause arrests to be made, trials and condemnations to be had, and punishments to be inflicted, in methods unknown to the civil procedure, but are responsible for an abuse of the power; and that the martial law, as a necessary adjunct of military movements, may be enforced in time of invasion or rebellion, wherever the influence and effect of these movements directly extends.'[6]

[Footnote 6: Sec.716 of 'An Introduction to Municipal Law,' by John Norton Pomeroy, Esq., Professor of Law in the New York University Law School. The whole chapter from which the extract is taken is worthy of diligent perusal, and the writer regrets that want of space alone prevents him quoting more fully from Professor Pomeroy's lucid exposition of the doctrine of martial law under our Constitution.]

These conclusions of the law are worthy to be considered carefully in view of the solemn resolutions of the Chicago platform, that 'military necessity' and the 'war power' are 'mere pretences' to override the Constitution.

It remains to say, with reference to the third and fifth resolutions of this platform, that they are chargeable with an equal and common ignorance: the third, in ignoring the necessity of the presence of the military at the elections referred to, in order that disloyalty and treason might not openly defy the authority of the nation; the fifth, in ignoring two things, first, the monstrous baseness of the rebel treatment of our prisoners, who have been starved alive, with a refinement of cruelty reserved for this Christian age, and practised only by the Christian chivalry of the South; and secondly, the rebel refusal to exchange prisoners man for man; the resolution seeking, moreover, to charge upon the United States Government the fault of both these rebel violations of humanity. It may be asked, moreover, in further reference to the third resolution, if the convention really meant to pledge itself to revolution;[7] and why, if the President, as chief of 'the military authority of the United States,' should be guilty of any abuses, the proper remedy is not by impeachment, as provided in the Constitution? The language of this resolution is gravely suggestive, and cannot be too closely criticised. It seems to shadow forth some dark design, which surely is in harmony with the whole tone of hostility to our Government that pervades the platform. Taken, moreover, in connection with the fact that the Chicago Convention declared itself a permanent body, subject to the call of the chairman, this criticism does not seem unreasonable; for permanent conventions have generally been the beginning of revolution.

[Footnote 7: The third resolution is, 'That the direct interference of the military authority of the United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and the repetition of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means and power under our control.']

THE BALTIMORE PLATFORM.

The Baltimore platform consists of eleven resolutions; and we may perceive at a glance the important respect in which it differs from the one adopted at Chicago. That confines itself to criticism and censure of those who are striving to uphold the Constitution and the Union against an armed rebellion, which it does not so much as by a single word condemn. This declares the purpose of the people 'to aid the Government in quelling by force the rebellion now raging against its authority;' so that its power shall be felt throughout the whole extent of our territory, and its blessings be restored to every section of the Union.

It is impossible to overlook this essential distinction of the two platforms. The one is full of the captious complaint of partisanship, intent on power, and oblivious of the highest duty of patriotism in this hour of the country's need; the other recognizes no higher duty now than the union of all parties for the sake of the Union. The one vainly cries peace when there is no peace; the other thinks not of peace except in and through the Union, without which there cannot be peace. Above all, the one takes us back to the former times of purely party strife, and seeks to revive the political issues of the past; the other, leaving 'the dead past to bury its dead,' keeps pace with the living present, and looks forward to a future of glory in a restored and regenerated Union. For it is folly to suppose there can ever again be 'the Union as it was.' This is a superficial phrase, which it is marvellous that any reflecting person can delude himself with. 'The Constitution as it is' is the motto that condemns it; for under the Constitution we are to have 'a more perfect Union,' as our fathers designed, and so stated in the Constitution itself. We are to have a constitutional Union in which every right guaranteed by the Constitution shall be maintained; and this was not so in 'the Union as it was.'

Thus it is that the Baltimore platform, after pledging the people to maintain 'the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States,' and approving the 'determination of the Government not to compromise' this authority, but holding out the same Constitution and laws as our only and the sufficient 'terms of peace' to all who will accept them, proceeds to take notice of what none but the wilfully blind fail to perceive, the changed aspect of the slavery question. It is impossible to hold the same position to-day in regard to this vexed question as in the days before the war. As an element of the politics of this country its aspect is wholly changed, and there is no sort of consistency in upholding our opinions of four years ago in reference to it. We do well to remember that consistency is not obstinacy. It is not an absolute, but a relative thing, and takes note of all the new elements which are ever entering into public affairs. The criterion of one's political consistency in our country is unfaltering devotion to the Union. If the measures he advocates look always to its paramount authority, his record is truly and honorably inconsistent. On the other hand, he who forgets the end of his labors in the ardor of seeking to save the means, is chargeable with the grossest inconsistency. What, therefore, consists with the perpetuity and strength of the Union? is the question which the American patriot proposes to himself.

It is in reference to this question that the Baltimore Platform challenges comparison with the one adopted at Chicago. For guided by the experience of the past four years (the culmination of fifty years' experience), and noting without fear the facts which that experience has revealed as in the clear light of midday, it declares that slavery is inconsistent with the existence of the Union. Does anybody deny it? Men tell us that the Union and slavery have heretofore, for more than half a century, existed together, and why may they not continue to exist in harmonious conjunction for the next half century? We are asked, moreover, with sarcastic disdain, if our wisdom is superior to that of the fathers. Our wisdom is not, indeed, superior to that of the fathers of the republic, but it would be far beneath it, and we should be unworthy sons of such fathers, if we undertook to carry out, in 1864, the policies and measures of 1764. The progress of affairs has developed the antagonism that was only latent before, but which, nevertheless, some of the wisest of our fathers foresaw; and it is now very clear that there is a terrible antagonism (no longer latent) between slavery and the principles that underlie the Constitution. The time has come to vindicate the wisdom of the Constitution by utterly removing what seeks to disgrace and destroy it—as it were a viper in the bosom of the nation.

We must show that our Government is strong enough not only to control, but also destroy, the interest which arrays itself in arms and war against it. It is useless, surely, to deny that the Southern Confederacy means slavery. Over and over again the Southern journals have asserted, and Southern politicians have said, that free labor was a mistake, and that slavery was the true condition of labor. That these are the deliberate convictions of the Southern leaders, and these the doctrines on which the Montgomery constitution is based, no reflecting person can hesitate to believe; and the boastful declaration of the rebel vice-president, that slavery was the corner stone of the rebel confederacy, serves to confirm our conclusion beyond possibility of doubt. What these things prove is nothing more nor less than that the Union with such an element in it to feed the ambition of politicians with, as this slavery has shown itself to be, is henceforth impossible. For we see now that for the sake of slavery the slaveholding leaders are willing to destroy the Government. Who can complain if the basis of their rebellious scheme is annihilated? The answer to those who say, Touch tenderly the institutions of the South, is, Nay, but let them first cease their rebellion. Therefore, so long as the rebellion lifts its unblushing front against the Government, so long it is the duty of every lover of the Government, in the language of the third resolution of this platform, to 'uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defence, has aimed a death blow at this gigantic evil.'

But that makes us, Abolitionists, says the reader. Be it so. Are we not willing to be Abolitionists for the sake of saving the Constitution and the Union? And if, despising our proffers of 'the Constitution as it is,' which we have now held out to them for three years and a half, the rebels continue to defy the authority of the Government, who can complain if we proceed to adopt an amendment to the Constitution that shall leave no possibility of slaveholding treason hereafter? Surely none but themselves. Let them, then, come back and vote against it; for three fourths of all the States must concur in such an amendment before it can become part of the Constitution. Ah, the leaders of the Southern rebellion know full well how the great masses at the South would vote on such a measure! Let us be ready, then, acting not for ourselves alone, but also for our deluded brethren of the South, who are to-day the victims of a military usurpation the most monstrous the world ever saw, to put the finishing stroke to the scheme of this Confederate rebellion by adopting the proposed amendment.

The fifth resolution commits us to the approval of two measures that have aroused the most various and strenuous opposition, the Proclamation of Emancipation and the use of negro troops. In reference to the first, it is to be remembered that it is a war measure. The express language of it is: 'By virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and Government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion.' Considered thus, the Proclamation is not merely defensible, but it is more; it is a proper and efficient means of weakening the rebellion which every person desiring its speedy overthrow must zealously and perforce uphold. Whether it is of any legal effect beyond the actual limits of our military lines, is a question that need not agitate us. In due time the supreme tribunal of the nation will be called to determine that, and to its decision the country will yield with all respect and loyalty. But in the mean time let the Proclamation go wherever the army goes, let it go wherever the navy secures us a foothold on the outer border of the rebel territory, and let it summon to our aid the negroes who are truer to the Union than their disloyal masters; and when they have come to us and put their lives in our keeping, let us protect and defend them with the whole power of the nation. Is there anything unconstitutional in that? Thank God, there is not. And he who is willing to give back to slavery a single person who has heard the summons and come within our lines to obtain his freedom, he who would give up a single man, woman, or child, once thus actually freed, is not worthy the name of American. He may call himself Confederate, if he will.

Let it be remembered, also, that the Proclamation has had a very important bearing upon our foreign relations. It evoked in behalf of our country that sympathy on the part of the people in Europe, whose is the only sympathy we can ever expect in our struggle to perpetuate free institutions. Possessing that sympathy, moreover, we have had an element in our favor which has kept the rulers of Europe in wholesome dread of interference. The Proclamation relieved us from the false position before attributed to us of fighting simply for national power. It placed us right in the eyes of the world, and transferred men's sympathies from a confederacy fighting for independence as a means of establishing slavery, to a nation whose institutions mean constitutional liberty, and, when fairly wrought out, must end in universal freedom.

We are to consider, furthermore, that from the issuing of the Proclamation dates the organization of negro troops—a measure that is destined to affect materially the future composition, as it is believed, of our regular army. This is 'the employment as Union soldiers of men heretofore held in slavery,' which the fifth resolution asks us to approve. Can we not approve it? The fighting qualities of the despised 'niggers' (as South Carolina chivalry terms the gallant fellows who followed Colonel Shaw to the deadly breach of Wagner, reckless of all things save the stars and stripes they fought under) have been tested on many battle fields. He whose heart does not respond in sympathy with their heroism on those fields, while defending from disgrace his country's flag, need not approve. The approval of the country will be given, nevertheless. There can be nothing better said, on this point than President Lincoln's own words, as reported lately by Judge Mills, of Wisconsin, to whom the President uttered them in conversation. They cover also the question of the Proclamation, and will fitly conclude our discussion of these two important measures:

'Sir,' said the President, 'the slightest knowledge of arithmetic will prove to any man that the rebel armies cannot be destroyed with Democratic strategy. It would sacrifice all the white men of the North to do it. There are now in the service of the United States near two hundred thousand ablebodied colored men, most of them under arms, defending and acquiring Union territory. The Democratic strategy demands that these forces be disbanded, and that the masters be conciliated by restoring them to slavery. The black men who now assist Union prisoners to escape, they are to be converted into our enemies in the vain hope of gaining the good will of their masters. We shall have to fight two nations instead of one.

'You cannot conciliate the South if you guarantee to them ultimate success; and the experience of the present war proves their success is inevitable if you fling the compulsory labor of millions of black men into their side of the scale. Will you give our enemies such military advantages as insure success, and then depend on coaxing, flattery, and concession to get them back into the Union? Abandon all the posts now garrisoned by black men, take two hundred thousand men from our side and put them in the battle field or corn field against us, and we would be compelled to abandon the war in three weeks.

'We have to hold territory in inclement and sickly places; where are the Democrats to do this? It was a free fight, and the field was open to the war Democrats to put down this rebellion by fighting against both master and slave, long before the present policy was inaugurated.

'There have been men base enough to propose to me to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee, and thus win the respect of the masters they fought. Should I do so, I should deserve to be damned in time and eternity. Come what will, I will keep my faith with friend and foe. My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition. So long as I am President, it shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the Union. But no human power can subdue this rebellion without the use of the emancipation policy, and every other policy calculated to weaken the moral and physical forces of the rebellion.

'Freedom has given us two hundred thousand men raised on Southern soil. It will give us more yet. Just so much it has subtracted from the enemy; and instead of alienating the South, there are now evidences of a fraternal feeling growing up between our men and the rank and file of the rebel soldiers. Let my enemies prove to the country that the destruction of slavery is not necessary to a restoration of the Union. I will abide the issue.'

Surely these are words of exceeding good sense. They are full of a feeling of the speaker's responsibility to God and his country; and the man who cares not for his responsibility to God, may well be distrusted by his country. Is he who speaks these words of patriotism a tyrant and usurper? Are not the words convincing proof that President Lincoln is honest and faithful and capable? And if he thus meets those three requirements of Jefferson's comprehensive formula, let us not refuse the language of the platform: 'That we have full confidence in his determination to carry these and all other constitutional measures essential to the salvation of the country into full and complete effect.'

The remaining six resolutions of this platform deserve the general remark, that they declare with no uncertain sound the views of the Baltimore Convention in reference to vital questions of public policy; whereas, the Chicago Convention has not even alluded to those questions. That in this hour of the country's crisis, in this life struggle of the nation with foes both open and secret, there should be 'harmony in the national councils;' that men once clothed in the uniform of United States soldiers become entitled to 'the full protection of the laws of war,' as forming part of the nation's defenders when those who ought to be its defenders have joined in an unholy sedition to destroy its life; that 'foreign immigration,' deserves especial encouragement at a time when the demands of the army leave the places of home labor without adequate means of refilling them; that a Pacific Railroad, uniting the extreme Western portion of the Union with all the other sections, and thus bringing within nearer reach of our California and Oregon countrymen all the advantages and facilities of the Government, while at the same time binding more closely the ties that make us one people with the West equally with the South; and that the nation's faith with all its creditors must be strictly kept, be the cost what it may; all these are duties which the terrible emergency of the hour only makes more imperative and exacting of fulfilment than ever before.

The eleventh and last resolution commits the country anew to the Monroe Doctrine. In view of the great crime that is enacting in Mexico, where a foreign power has assumed to change the Government of that afflicted country at its own arbitrary will, the declaration that we have not abandoned the doctrine is appropriate and necessary. It is a warning that our eyes are not closed to the schemes on foot for the suppression of republican government on this continent. While our present necessity compels us, as of course, to act with great circumspection, yet it would be unbecoming our dignity to quietly ignore the spoliation of Mexico. It is often said that President Lincoln, in his letter accepting the Baltimore nomination, has repudiated this resolution. These are his words:

'While the resolution in regard to the supplanting of republican government upon the Western Continent is fully concurred in, there might be misunderstanding were I not to say that the position of the Government in relation to the action of France in Mexico, as assumed through the State Department, and indorsed by the convention, among the measures and acts of the Executive, will be faithfully maintained so long as the state of facts shall leave that position pertinent and applicable.'

It is not fair to say that this is a repudiation of the resolution, or of the Monroe Doctrine, until it is first shown that the Government 'through the State Department,' has already repudiated the doctrine. The time for the enforcement of that doctrine has not yet come, and this seems to be the position that has been assumed by the Government. It certainly is the position of common sense and patriotism.

* * * * *

The candid reader has now before him a brief exposition of the two platforms, and of the doctrines and bearing of each. It is believed that nothing has been extenuated; nor, on the other hand, has aught been here set down in malice. Let every one study the platforms and try conclusions for himself; then say whether the foregoing discussion could well have shaped itself differently. The sum of the whole matter seems to be, War and Union, or Peace and Disunion. If we have Union, it can only be now through war. We must 'seek peace with the sword.' The rebels have appealed from the civil law to the military law, from the Constitution to the sword; let us not shrink from the ordeal. No revolution to perpetuate oppression can hope for the favor of a God of justice.

There are two platforms in this Presidential campaign, representing the two parties into which the voters will be divided. But there is a third party, without platform and without vote, which has, nevertheless, interests at stake transcending even ours. Let the calmly considered words of an impartial English journal,[8] which wishes well to our country, speak, in conclusion, on behalf of that third party:

'There are three parties to the American war. There are the slaves, the bondsmen of the South, whose flight was restrained by the Fugitive Bill, and whose wrongs have brought about the disruption; there are the Confederates, who, when Southern supremacy in the republic was menaced by the election of Abraham Lincoln, threw off their allegiance; and there are the Government and its supporters, who are striving to restore the integrity of the Union. These are the three parties; and as the war has gone on from year to year, the cause of the negro has brightened, and hundreds of thousands of the African race have passed out of slavery into freedom. They flock in multitudes within the Federal lines, and take their stand under the Constitution as free men. Abandoned by their former masters, or flying from their fetters, the chattels become citizens, and rejoice. No matter what their misery, they keep their faces to the North, and bear up under their privations. Every advance of the national army liberates new throngs, and they rush eagerly to the camps where their brethren are cared for. The exodus, continually going on, increases in volume.

[Footnote 8: London Inquirer.]

'Such are the colored freedmen, the innocent victims of the war, the slaves whom it has marvellously enfranchised; such are the dusky clouds that flit o'er the continent of America and settle down on strange lands—the harbingers of a social revolution in the great republic of the West. More than fifty thousand are formed into camps in the Mississippi Valley, and not fewer in Middle and East Tennessee and North Alabama. It is a vast responsibility which is cast upon the Government and the people of the North, a sore and mighty burden; and proportionate are the efforts which have been made to meet the trying emergency. The Government finds rations for the negro camps, provides free carriage for the contributions of the humane, appoints surgeons and superintendents, enlists in the army the men who are suitable, and, as far as possible, gives employment to all. Clothing and other necessaries are forwarded to the camps by the ton by benevolent hands, and books for the schools by tens of thousands. All along the banks of the Mississippi, from Cairo to New Orleans, and in Arkansas and Tennessee, the aged and infirm fugitives, the women and children, are collected into colored colonies, and tended and taught with a care that is worthy of a great and Christian people. All that can work are more than willing to do so; they labor gladly; and among old and young there is an eager desire for education. Books are coveted as badges of freedom; and the negro soldier carries them with him wherever he goes, and studies them whenever he can. It is a great work which is in progress across the Atlantic. Providence, in a manner which man foresaw not, is solving a dark problem of the past, and we may well look on with awe and wonder. There were thousands of minds which apprehended the downfall of the 'peculiar institution.' There were a prophetic few, who clearly perceived that it would be purged away by no milder scourge than that of war. But there were none who dreamed that the slaveholder would be the Samson to bring down the atrocious system of human slavery by madly taking arms in its defence! Yet so it was; and the Divine penalty is before us. The wrath of man has worked out the retributive justice of God. The crime which a country would not put away from it has ended in war, and slavery is a ruin.'

* * * * *

LITERARY NOTICES unavoidably postponed until the ensuing issue of THE CONTINENTAL.

THE END